First off, let’s make something clear. This post is not about the actual shooting of Michael Brown, nor the validity of the grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson. This post is about the deeper issue that has tacitly pervaded American culture for decades, revealing itself to public scrutiny only in phasic culminations of racial tension.

The shootings of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamari Rice, and countless others constitute a pattern of events that are neither random nor statistically isolated. They represent the climax of racial imbalance, the tip of the iceberg wherein the other nine tenths of the issue, illustrated by decades of discrimination, racial steering, and intergenerational poverty, remain submerged under the facade of equality and an intact justice system. Most of us, blinded by privilege and comforted by the sense of grandeur and inherent superiority instantiated in the American identity, are taught to embrace the system in the honest belief that we belong to a free and just society. And we are nothing but complicit, if not eager, to accept this as the unquestionable truth. We champion our courts of law and upstanding democracy while resting blissfully ignorant under its paternalistic enforcement of our privilege. But every time events like Ferguson occur we are forced to confront the disillusioning reality that otherwise eludes the veil of privilege and patriotism.

America is one of the most racially diverse demographic nations in the world and yet racial disparity is epitomized in its criminal justice system. African Americans constitute 12% of the U.S. population and concurrently represent nearly 40% of the incarcerated population. Coupled with the widespread declining rate of crime, these statistics illustrate the profound impact of racial biasing in America. The discrimination seen in Ferguson’s law enforcement history alone is cause for outrage. The racial profiling is simply not justified in light of the statistical evidence. Last year in Ferguson, 92% of searches and 86% of car searches involved black citizens, but the majority of contraband, illegal guns, and drugs, were carried by white citizens – 1 in 3 whites to 1 in 5 blacks. Given this polarized reality, the growing public distrust expressed toward the justice system and its enforcers is quite understandable. After all, the jury’s decision, as infuriating as it was, came as a surprise to no one – and that cynicism perfectly articulates the inherent corruption of the American justice system and its role in enabling the racial divide that precludes justice.

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP / Getty Images

The racial tension in Ferguson transcends the cold blooded murder of a young college prospect; the decision of a predominantly white jury not to indict a fellow white man accused of murdering a black man in a predominantly black city is indicative of a greater injustice. Ferguson typifies the rampant systemic corruption that manifests in the aftermath of demographic transition: the collapse of fragile race relations in a black majority governed by white municipal institutions. Not to mention the completely unwarranted militarized police response to the protests, complete with M-16s and armored vehicles, which only exacerbated the existing adversarial police-civilan relations by enacting a war zone. What little credibility Ferguson’s police force maintained following Darren Wilson’s carelessness was quickly squandered by this abuse of power, adding a further dimension to the criticism of American law enforcement protocol.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Scott Olsen/Getty Images

In the aftermath of the grand jury’s verdict and the anticipated flood of emotions that were incarnated by mass protests and property damage in Ferguson, many commentators took to social media to disseminate the civil unrest. Predictably, the dialogue surrounding the issue remains as segregated as Ferguson itself.

Most responses were beneficial to the cause.

Some downright racist and idiotic.

Others depicted the situation under the guise of pseudo-neutrality and constructive rhetoric, citing the rebellion and the type of behavior exemplified in the riots as the inherent cause for racial marginalization in (white) society – a conflation that personifies the racism operating within American culture.

Some individuals, including black people, offered a more direct criticism of black culture and attributed the apparent racial disempowerment to political disinterest and lack of involvement in “the system”. This type of attitude, condescending at its best and blatantly racist at its worst, is contentious to the pursuit of racial equality.

It is evident that the overall conversation remains fragmented, these polarized views have succeeded only in conveying a distortion of the truth, an incomplete assessment of race relations in America, and a misidentification of the fundamental problem at the core of the American justice system. Though the absence of blacks from municipal institutions is evident and appalling, existing to the extent of a very real segregation, the overall message of these statements is false. No one is disputing the lack of uniform demographic representation in American government, but to simply chalk this up to a lack of ambition is iniquitous. The issue runs much deeper, entrenched in a longstanding historical tradition and implicitly upheld by a cultural mindset that has infiltrated even the most upstanding institutions of the law: a contemporary racism, socially preened to fit within the legal boundaries of the law while still expertly exploiting the oppressed.

Racism has been systematically cultivated and culturally encrypted since the country’s origins in slavery such that it is now largely inconspicuous, and often manifesting below awareness as implicit stereotypes even in those who do not identify as racist. Substituting moral inadequacy for biological inferiority, this new form of prejudice covertly resembles the dominant ideology that formerly legitimized racism. The fear and discrimination characterizing the Jim Crow mentality simply evolved toward a subtler prejudice among the privileged, the power differential shifting from explicit racism to implicit classist elitism. Cotton plantations and congested slaves’ quarters were replaced with profit prisons and overcrowded welfare offices. Racial zoning laws were exchanged for redlining and mortgage discrimination. Racial segregation was simply operationalized by white flight rather than constitutional validation. The motives of the Klu Klux Klan enacted by the actions of self-proclaimed vigilantes like George Zimmerman. And yet, the symbolic racism implicated by these transgressions is reliably upheld by the very system built to serve justice and equality. What we see happening in Ferguson is simply a frustrated response to a corrupt system, a system founded on a shameful history and the conservative American beliefs it protects.

Though an integral aspect of the American civil rights legacy, abolition did little for the socioeconomic enslavement that would permeate generations to come. In the wake of liberation, emancipated slaves constituted a new class of socioeconomically compromised citizens, but by no means were these individuals equitably integrated into society.

Segregation, exclusionary covenants, racial steering, and aggravated urban decay all predicated the development trap that would dictate their racial austerity. These marginalizing policies were designed to ensure black culture would not infiltrate white society, to impede productivity and education by limiting income and infrastructure. The current effects of which, viciously self-propagating and seemingly inescapable, are seen on either side: the prolonged marginalization of African-Americans, and the subsequent criticism of the illegitimate activity that occurs as result. No doubt the latter belongs to the modern prejudicial contempt that endured the demise of the “separate but equal” era to be reified by the same conservative folk who condemn public welfare and affirmative action.

The criticism, citing gang crime and black-on-black violence, drug use, unemployment and government dependence, etc., is unwarranted in that it ignores the transgenerational effects of historical oppression. These people were denied basic human rights for so long and then suddenly expected to compete in a job market they had no experience in, a schooling system they had not been educated in, and an economic climate they had no resources in. How could they be expected to thrive in a system that was never built for their success?

Though for some it has become prosaic, perhaps even tautological, to correlate racial injustice with the lack of racial diversity seen in the justice system, it is not in any way justified to suggest simply modifying the African-American work ethic as a viable solution. The fallacy lies in the conflation of race and crime, a misattribution that is confounded by the effect of poverty. In such cases poverty has been inflicted on a racial minority for historical reasons, which is correlated with an increased propensity for crime.

So while you may argue, sitting atop your tall white horse, that black people need only be more active members of society to see change, whether it be by registering to vote and increasing representation in juries or becoming directly involved in the judicial system or political hierarchies, you may first want to consider a more circumspect perspective. The question is not whether there needs to be stronger diversity in these systems to allow for a more accurate representation of the population – this is obvious, rather the question is why there is such a blatant lack of diversity and how can this be rectified, because the answer is not a simple one, and the solution even less so.

Power – real power, the kind we see dominating courtrooms, running bureaucracies, and corrupting the justice system – belongs to the upper echelons of the sociopolitical gambit, the financially elite. These are the ones with a vested interest in politics because the government works for their benefit – it’s their system. The socially and politically alienated on the other hand, are often reluctant to constructively participate in a society that has already forgotten them.

Elijah Nouvelage / Reuters

Thus, the eruptive anger demonstrated by protesters in Ferguson is an inevitable response to a longstanding racial imbalance and social inequality. That is why Michael Brown’s death represents much more than a case of racial profiling or police brutality, it is a reflection of the failed assimilation of an oppressed people into an oppressive culture. Similarly, the failure to indict Darren Wilson is more than a case of bureaucratic incompetence, it is a reflection of a skewed system protecting a class of elites. You don’t have to condone the chaos that has ensued in Ferguson to understand it. That being said, addressing both the acute and long term factors contributing to widespread racial inequality is critical to enhancing the accountability and credibility of the American justice system and therefore critical to public safety and social justice everywhere.

ROBYN BECK/AFP / Getty Images

So to all those criticizing the people of Ferguson: stop correlating black culture with a lack of values and degenerate morality and recognize these riots as a desperate effort to be acknowledged in a broken system. Drop the pseudo-egalatarian bullshit if you concurrently admonish the welfare state; learn that equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Stop undermining constructive racial dialogue with accusations of race baiting and realize that we do not live in a post-racial society, sometimes race is relevant to a crime and the color-blind approach is neither pragmatic nor conducive to social change. And to everyone else: stop being apathetic and understand that a justice system that tolerates injustice is a nation’s greatest enemy.

It’s not merely within the talk of cynics and misanthropes that one can expect to find disillusionment toward this world; nature creates and nature destroys, all with an air of indifference to whatever chaos ensues. Even the committed theist surely has difficulty in reconciling the optimism of Leibniz – that this is the ‘best possible world’ – with the starkly contrasted state of affairs we presently find ourselves in. In fact, it is quite obvious that this is not the best possible world, since any one of us can effortlessly conceptualize a world with less evil and more love, so surely an all-powerful god could effortlessly actualize it. From HIV to AIDS, earthquakes causing tsunamis, hurricanes perpetuating floods, and droughts that enable famine, it is not an unreasonable question to ask: where is God?

The basis upon which the Abrahamic religions are built, depicts a single supernatural entity that, while being intimately involved in the lives of his divine creation, is ostentatiously defined by his unwavering omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. These three attributes are the hallmark of perfect being theology, which posits that a truly divine God must be maximally perfect in all faculties. That is, he must possess the greatest possible set of intrinsically good properties. When considering the world in which we live, wrought with evil and unimaginable suffering, it seems positively absurd to credit such obvious imperfection to a being who is supposedly defined by perfection.

If we are to assume that the theistic God exists, then we should expect to find ourselves in a world that does not contain avoidable suffering because a benevolent god would not want us to suffer, and an all-powerful god would be able to actualize that desire by preventing our suffering. It is here that we find the inconsistency, since our world does contain avoidable suffering. There are countless instances throughout history where God could have prevented suffering without permitting evil or compromising the ‘greater good’, yet that is certainly not the history man has come to know. The presence of gratuitous evil and avoidable suffering in the world poses a rather palpable threat to theism, for it shatters the very premise of divinity: perfection.

Prominent monotheisms hold belief in an anthropomorphized god possessing human-like qualities such as emotion and volition. His most revered attribute however, is not one capable of humans; in fact it is specifically the lack of this attribute that signifies our separation from the divine – the quality of perfection. The assumption that God is perfect in all faculties poses an immediate problem: if God is a perfect creator then his creation must also be perfect.

Theologians and apologists claim to have resolved this obvious logical inconsistency with theodicies involving free will, which effectively cast the blame on man for proliferating evil by misusing our God-given autonomy. However, invoking the free will defense only addresses moral evils, but what of gratuitous evil? What of earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and hurricanes that ravage entire communities? Or birth defects that handicap children, cancers and diseases that infiltrate any and all tissues of the body? And avalanches, rockslides, and forest fires that compromise not only human lives, but biological diversity and intricate ecosystems? The list is seemingly endless, and the suffering that amounts is endless still, yet none of these disasters are the result of human agency.

And it is not just the catastrophic natural disasters and epidemics that should be taken into account when considering the existence of suffering, but also the very mechanisms of the natural world. Take for example, the dynamics of ecosystems and predator-prey interactions, which are characterized by the unrelenting fact that one organism must die for the other to live.

Natural selection, the mechanism credited with our own evolution, is itself necessitated by selfish genes that reward opportunistic behavior. The products of nature may be beautiful, but the methods through which they are derived are ugly, for they are dependent on a cycle of violence and submission. Sir David Attenborough famously commented on this supposed beauty of nature as a creation of God in numerous interviews:

When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And [I ask them], ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.

What reasonable conclusion can be made in light of nature’s innate wickedness, the suffering that results, and the lives lost in vain? The obvious answer seems to be that since avoidable evil not only exists but is fundamentally necessitated by all organisms’ struggle for survival, an all powerful and all-good god does not exist.

According to Genesis, natural evil is a punishment from God, as result of Adam and Eve’s transgressions in the Garden of Eden. This explanation serves to coalesce the triggers of natural evil with those of moral evil, such that natural evil is both a punishment and reflection of our humanly flaws. If we are to accept this causality, then we cannot describe God as being benevolent. As mentioned earlier, humans are definitively separated from God by measure of perfection such that God is maximally perfect, and humans are sufficiently imperfect. Yet despite this rather crippling handicap, we are still held entirely accountable, and eternally condemned in fact, for the wrongful actions resulting from exercising the free will that God forced us to have. If we are given free will with a tendency toward sin, but eternally damned if we act in a way that is consistent with our nature, were we ever free to begin with?

The double standard that arises is unsettling to say the least, especially because God is in a position of totalitarian control. We are told to love him unconditionally, though our salvation through his love is highly conditional. If we are to be held entirely responsible for the magnitude of our transgressions, then God must at least be held accountable for the natural evils that afflict our world. If hurricanes, earthquakes, and childhood leukemia are punishment for homosexuality, eating shellfish, and failing to keep the Sabbath holy, then free will truly is an illusion and the very basis of theodicy collapses. A god that creates flawed beings and punishes them for acting imperfectly by summoning the forces of nature to destroy, injure, and kill, is a sadistic god unworthy of praise or affection. This god shows no qualities of mercy, but rather a self-gratifying ordinance of power over humans, who, in spite of the continuous onslaught of misery, still ironically praise his name.

An additional problem that arises from the Biblical interpretation of natural evil is the occurrence of supposed miracles relative to natural evils. For the purposes of this argument, I will define a ‘miracle’ as any event that poses a significant amount of good to a significant amount of people, rather than personal revelation since it is hardly verifiable. If God can intervene in the world with intent to punish, why does he not also intervene to reward? When looking back on human history, it is quite obvious that natural evils have afflicted far more people than any miracles have benefitted. You would think after punishing us with so many disasters and epidemics, an all-good God would reward us once in a while.

Attempts to reconcile natural evil with the theistic god are abundant in theological discourse, yet they remain largely unsatisfactory in arguing their case. St. Augustine’s free will theodicy, also known as the “soul-deciding theodicy”, posits that all natural evils are the work of demonic forces resulting from moral evil. This logical framework is advocated by many modern theologians such as Alvin Plantinga, and was even integrated into the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God, …and although his action may cause grave injuries – of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature – to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence, which, with strength and gentleness, guides human and cosmic history. (Catholic Church 395)

It seems however, that this ad hoc explanation for the existence of natural evil in the world introduces far more problems than it solves; if God is indeed omnipotent, he could easily destroy the demons responsible for natural evils. After all, he was so willing to destroy humans with the Great Flood for all of their wrongdoings and sinful ways, could he not do the same to these demonic forces? (Interestingly, the Bible claims that God later regretted his decision to annihilate the human race (New King James Version, Gen. 8:20-22), thus implying he could not have foreseen the consequences of doing so – meaning God is not omniscient.) In any case, proposing natural evil to be the work of demons may logically solve the problem, but realistically, it forces the believer to adopt even more bizarre and convoluted explanations to accommodate the improbability of the original premise. (It’s also worth noting that there exists no tangible shred of evidence to support either of these claims in the first place.)

Despite the fact that these ‘demonic forces’ are poorly defined to begin with, the causality existing between their assumed origin and their alleged authority in producing evil on such large-scales remains ambiguous at best. The idea of devils/demons/extrinsic forces of evil existing independently of God, suggests a duality in universal power, which is incompatible with monotheistic beliefs. William Lane Craig, a distinguished theologian and Christian apologist, has defined ‘goodness’ to be synonymous with God, such that God is goodness rather than God has goodness. As Craig puts it, “God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being, and a being which is the paradigm of goodness is greater than one which merely exemplifies goodness.” (Craig 182). If we are to accept God as the ultimate paradigm of goodness, we are led to two resulting conclusions. The first is that he cannot be omnipotent since he is constrained by being wholly good and his will is limited to doing only good things. The second conclusion, a logical jump from the first, is that since he is limited to doing only good things, he can only create good things, meaning only good things can come from him. These demonic forces must have come from God then, since God created all things ex nihilo. And because God is inherently good, anything that comes from him must also be good regardless of free will, since free will does not necessitate evil. Thus, the notion of evil spirits existing outside of the physical realm is still subject to the causal entanglement that attributes evil to God’s creation.

Another reconciliatory framework commonly found in theology accepts that evil comes from God, but claims it is well justified. This theodicy, based on the writings of Irenaeus and referred to as the “soul-making theodicy”, suggests that natural evils have the divine purpose of developing virtuous qualities to purify the soul, meaning they are necessary in developing moral character through compassion, forgiveness, obedience, courage, etc.

The obvious criticism of the Irenaean theodicy is the sheer exorbitance of natural evils, which seem wildly unnecessary if intended solely for the purpose of moral development. Is it not an act of overzealousness to invoke the Bubonic Plague for example, to develop moral character? (One may also ask of what good moral character is, if everyone capable of it is dead…) Consider the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that devastated Haiti in 2010. This single earthquake boasted a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, in a country already afflicted with immense poverty, with approximately 70% of its population living on less than $US2 a day. And it was not just the earthquake itself that caused such widespread suffering, but also the resulting outbreaks of cholera that claimed the lives of thousands more. What ‘greater good’ could have come from this? It may be true that these horrific events inspired great philanthropic gestures and challenged the spirit of heroism and altruism within the global community, but surely these discrete acts of valor do not outweigh the profound suffering that necessitated them in the first place?

Moreover, this possible explanation for the occurrence of gratuitous suffering calls into question the value of goodness, for it justifies evil and suffering as an instrument to inspire moral goodness. But how good is goodness if it is validated only by the presence of evil? Goodness, as earlier defined by Craig and others, is an intrinsic property and if we are to assume that objective morals exist, as all theisms do, then we must accept that ‘the good’ is not relative to evil nor are moral actions contingent on the option of immoral action. Herein lies the fundamental inadequacy of the Irenaean theodicy and its counterparts. God places the ‘willingness to be moral’ as the pinnacle of goodness, such that choosing to be moral is a greater good than simply being moral. This premise forces us to reexamine the nature of God. If he is maximally perfect, then he should also be self-sufficient and free of any needs or desires. Why then, does he so desperately crave human affection, praise, and moral action so much so, that he is willing to permit and inflict harm upon us just to satisfy his desire? This God is not perfect nor is he benevolent but rather, he is selfish by seeking to fulfill his own shallow desires by giving man free will while ignoring the suffering that will inevitably ensue.

A further implication of the Irenaean theodicy is the supposition that meaningless suffering does not exist since all suffering serves the greater purpose of developing moral character. William Rowe, a distinguished philosopher, famously presented an argument for the evidential problem of evil whereby he introduced a thought experiment to prove that unnecessary suffering does exist. The thought experiment is presented as such:

Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn’s intense suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn’s suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Since the fawn’s intense suffering was preventable and, so far as we can see, pointless, doesn’t it appear that there do exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Tittle 44)

What greater moral purpose was achieved through the fawn’s suffering? Forces beyond the animal’s control caused the circumstances, and no human could have prevented it, so there is no earthly being who is responsible for its suffering. Since it eventually died, its suffering did not instill any beneficial wisdom to the creature. Similarly, its demise was not punishment for some misdeed since fawns do not have any concept of morality, so it would be absurd to claim a greater moral purpose. It is reasonable therefore, to conclude that the suffering endured by the fawn was completely meaningless, and that unnecessary evils not only exist, but also provide a solid grounding for the rejection of theistic beliefs.

Simply put, the problem of natural evil and avoidable suffering is fatal to theism because it cannot coexist with a god who is supremely powerful and good. Therefore, the theist must concede that either their presupposition of god’s nature is false, or that no god exists at all. One need not delve too far into the passages of the Bible to see the portrayal of an angry, jealous creator, nor too deep into Islamic scripture to get a sense of the militant, war-hungry God that is glorified page after page. As a species we have come to understand so much about the universe; our knowledge stretches far beyond the realm of superstition and myth – and yet we still hopelessly cling to these Bronze Age relics. To idly accept human suffering and believe that a just, loving God is orchestrating it to punish certain individuals or to nurture our moral development, is to be ignorant of the human experience.

There is much suffering in this world and in order to alleviate its presence we must be willing to accept that perhaps it has no greater meaning. We must be cognizant of reality and strive for a better future through our own endeavor instead of shifting the responsibility to a god because the task seems too daunting. We must mobilize and try to bring justice to injustice, peace to conflict, and love to one another. It is our duty to mitigate suffering, and our duty alone as patrons of this planet and citizens of this global community; we must realize that worldly justice depends on our willingness to enforce it.

The fact is, the GOP needs to stop identifying themselves as pro-life when what they really are is pro-birth. At first, the terms may seem synonymous, as well as a controversial aspect of the Republican rhetoric, but a closer look at the Republican party platform demonstrates that the two terms are vastly different.

A pro-birther is someone who wants to outlaw birth control and sex education, someone who does not support abortion even in the case of rape, someone who believes life starts the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, but once the baby is born, well, that’s where the compassion ends. Upon reading ‘The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life’ section in the 2012 Republican Party Platform which seeks to redefine human life in the Constitution, you’ll soon realize there is no mention of exemptions for cases of rape or incest, nor anything protecting the health and safety of the mother. Within the lack of acknowledgement for the potential endangerment of the mother during pregnancy or childbirth, the first hypocrisy arises — what about the mother’s life? If promoting the sanctity of every human life is truly a Republican priority, the protection of the mother’s life should not be ignored either.

The “Human Life Amendment” or HR 212, proposed by the Republican party, essentially gives a fertilized egg the same rights as a human outside the womb, and effectively overturns Roe v. Wade. But what about after life inside the womb? How can the GOP claim to be pro-life when they want to stop funding that benefits the life of a child? The GOP knows that being pro-life is an essential aspect of their portrayal of conservative Christian values, but they also know being genuinely pro-life would cost them. Their elitist philosophy, disguised as advocation for pro-lifers, supports a budget that cuts funding for:

Basically any program in place to support at-risk children is a target for the GOP. So it’s pretty obvious that pro-life as defined by Republicans, isn’t really pro-life at all. They’re so hard pressed on protecting the sanctity of human life for a whole nine months*, but after that, all you’re left with is a big fat ‘screw you’.

Republicans want to eliminate all the programs that would help low-income single moms raise the children that they would be forced to have under Republican legislation. Their agenda does not support life — it supports forced birth, it supports child development budget cuts and it supports the government’s right to control a woman’s body. So for clarity’s sake, just because you don’t agree with abortion that doesn’t make you pro-life. If you don’t want your tax dollars to help support children that were born into low-income families, then you aren’t pro-life — you’re pro-birth, all talk and no walk.

The GOP wants to seem caring and compassionate; they want you to think they have humanity’s best interest in mind. The thing is, that’s total bullshit. They don’t even want people to have the option of preventing pregnancy. So I have to wonder, when a Republican looks at a woman, do they see a woman or baby-making machine, designed for the sole purpose of procreating?Because there’s nothing compassionate about forcing a woman to give birth and then taking away all her resources to raise the child in a healthy home.

Now don’t get me wrong, pro-lifers do exist, just not in the way the GOP has defined them. A true pro-life advocate is first and foremost pro-choice because he/she doesn’t believe the government should control a woman’s reproductive rights. A true pro-lifer does not want birth control to be taken away and while he/she does not support abortion, he/she believes a woman should be able to have one if she is met with the unfortunate circumstance of pregnancy from rape or incest. A true pro-lifer understands that responsibility for a life does not end at birth, and therefore likes the idea of his/her tax dollars helping underprivileged children receive the medical and social care they need. A true pro-lifer knows that everybody’s situation is different, and one federal law that does not take into account all these personal circumstances is not reasonable, and not viable for a society predicated on social growth, which is why he/she would support the pro-choice movement, because it is exactly that — a choice.

*There’s no room for prenatal care in their budget, so they wouldn’t be doing much for those nine months either.

In 2003, President Bush declared that the U.S was going to invade Iraq due to a growing suspicion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. The debate as to whether or not Iraq had WMDs was highly controversial, as it incited a 15-month long investigation organized by the CIA and the Pentagon. On September 30, 2004, the highly-publicized Duelfer Report was released, which concluded that Iraq did not in fact possess any WMDs nor any significant means for developing them.

Despite these findings however, a survey conducted by the Project on International Policy Alternatives (PIPA) a month following the Duelfer Report release, reported that 47% (!) of Bush supporters still believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, and 25% believed Hussein had programs in place for developing them. Conversely, according to that same PIPA survey, supporters of John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate at the time, did not believe Iraq had WMDs nor the programs to develop them. So why, despite the same evidence being presented to both groups, was the distinction between beliefs so strongly correlated with party affiliation. Well, a bit of psychology can answer that.

The Bush supporters who participated in this survey were most likely exhibiting what is known as belief persistence (or belief perseverance), the tendency to identify with old, familiar beliefs even when they have been widely disproven, and no longer accepted as fact. Despite overwhelming evidence, those who demonstrate belief persistence, or “my side bias”, continue to entertain their original beliefs simply because it is easier to keep a current mentality than to conform to a new, unfamiliar side of an issue. In this case, the Bush supporters initially identified with the President’s beliefs that Iraq possessed WMDs, and despite the evidence discrediting this notion, they were unable to assimilate the reality into their political construct. This phenomena is a mechanism of mental resistance; it is likely that when presented with the information in the Duelfer Report, the Bush supporters who had been surveyed, engaged in cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a mental state that arises from conflicting beliefs which causes a sense of discomfort to a degree which leads to a change in one of the beliefs to restore consonance, or balance, between the two ideas. This balance is typically achieved by modifying the new, incompatible belief, or ignoring it all together in order to reinforce the original belief. In this case, the Bush supporters did not want to accept that there were no WMDs in Iraq because that would suggest the President they had put their faith in, had been wrong about such a critical issue of national security, and that might lead one to conclude he was an unfit President, that they had made the wrong decision in voting, etc. So you can see how distressing this thought process might be to a Bush supporter; it seems it is much easier to simply disregard the evidence and reinforce one’s own personal faith in the President.

The main problem that collective belief persistence poses in the realm of politics, is that it undermines rationality and impedes the ability to make informed decisions, particularly when voting. The flat-out refusal to accept evidence that refutes one’s own beliefs causes voters to ignorantly follow their disconfirmed beliefs (also referred to as “unwavering faith”), and by extension, the politicians who represent them. Granted, this is the same psychological mechanism being exercised by Creationists with their young earth belief, but that’s another issue for another time.

The good news is, there is a way to combat belief persistence and selective attention in general, that is only accepting information that reconsolidates preconceived assumptions while ignoring any contradicting ideas. The solution requires a conscious effort to view life through an objective lens, to employ critical thinking when presented with new information, and being generally skeptical about opinions from others without hastily accepting it as the undeniable truth. This requires an open mind and a habit of examining a situation from all perspectives in order to make a well-informed decision on where you stand on an issue.

“It’s certainly true that 51 percent (rounding up from 50.5) to 48 percent is close, but since the end of World War II, five elections have been closer. Mitt Romney won only two more states (Indiana and North Carolina) than John McCain did, and even if he had won Florida, the GOP nominee would still have needed to win Ohio, Virginia, and either Colorado or Iowa, based on the sequence of the election margins.”

Not only did the Democrats augment their Senate majority by two seats, they also obtained eight more seats in the House of Representatives (they won the House popular vote too), although the Republicans still maintain the majority of House seats.

Yet somehow, the GOP is still unable to understand how and why the election results played out exactly the way they did. Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas said, “I don’t think we lost by being too conservative and articulating our principles too clearly. What we need to do is actually do a better job in articulating conservative principles to all kinds of folks.” …. (this is the part when every single American engages in a simultaneous face palm)

Poor things, they still don’t get it.. But I’m not getting into that again.

The current issue seems to be the does he/doesn’t he dilemma concerning whether the President has a mandate. According to Paul Ryan and many other Republicans, he does not. Let’s take a look at the facts:

He won every battleground state except for North Carolina

He won the the popular vote

He got 126 more electoral votes than his GOP rival (332 total)

His Electoral College margin was more substantial than Bush’s in 2000 and 2004, and even he declared a mandate

6.8 million more people voted for Obama than voted for House Republicans

As David Frum, former speech writer for President George W. Bush, stated on Anderson Cooper 360, “Whether the President has a mandate is a matter of opinion, whether he has power, is a matter of fact. And this President now has enormous power because of the expiry of all of these various tax measures […]”.

That being said, the fact that the U.S. is a democracy, meaning the will of the majority is reflected in the election, confirms that whoever is elected as president, has a mandate. That being said, the President does have a mandate because he was elected in a democratic election, and his voters were aware of his agenda and voted accordingly. It’s simple logic, people.

So I think it’s safe to say, Obama’s reelection gives rise to his mandate on raising taxes for any household with an annual income exceeding $250k, due to the fact that 67% of voters agree that economic resolution can begin by increasing taxes on the wealthy. And just so we’re clear, it’s not socialism, it’s a necessary step in cleaning up the shit storm created by the Bush administration.

William Kristol, a Republican commentator, raised a fair point when he asked Fox News, “Really? The Republican Party is gonna fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic, and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republicans?” This is an interesting point because I think people tend to forget that those outside of the middle class bracket can support tax cuts for the middle class. I mean, you don’t have to be gay to support gay rights. Look at all of Obama’s A-list celebrity endorsers, the list is definitely much longer than Romney’s, and they’re certainly not middle class.

But alas, life goes on. The leaves will fall, the seasons will change, the GOP will continue to alienate potential voters. And unless the Republican Party stops stubbornly grasping on to the archaic ideology of “what America was”, and instead embrace a future of change, acceptance, and diversity, they will grudgingly be subject to many more democrat mandates (even if it’s in their better interest anyway).

]]>https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-thing-about-mandates-and-why-obama-has-one/feed/0definingmyethosChartOfTheDay_699_Preliminary_results_of_the_2012_presidential_election_nObamafacepalmreg_1024.obama.JayZB.mh.091912Barak Obama, Chris Rock628x471Katy_Perry_Grandma_Obama_US_Election_2012_640x360obama-clooneyo-BETTY-WHITE-BARACK-OBAMA-570Altruism vs. Capitalism: Obstacles in restructuring Africa’s health care systemhttps://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/altruism-vs-capitalism-obstacles-in-restructuring-africas-health-care-system/
https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/altruism-vs-capitalism-obstacles-in-restructuring-africas-health-care-system/#commentsTue, 13 Nov 2012 19:26:22 +0000http://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/?p=124Continue reading →]]>“Let me tell you a story about life, death and profit. It involves some of the poorest countries in the world and some of the richest companies. It goes to the heart of how the modern world is to be run and whether the institutions set up to police the global economy are up to the job.

Eleven million people in poor countries will die from infectious diseases this year. Put a different way, it means that by the time you finish reading this column 100 people will have died. Half of them will be children aged under five.” — Larry Elliott, Evil triumphs in a sick society, Guardian, February 12, 2001

Photo retrieved from: deborahswallow.com

Allow me to administer you a sobering slap to the face, and remind you of the reality surrounding much of the developing world. Diseases which have been near-eradicated in the Western world, are running rampant in developing countries, propagating poverty and poor living conditions, enabling a vicious, inescapable cycle of destitution and weakened immune systems. In many parts of the developing world, the prevalence of diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS are just as a common as, well, the common cold. And they have no means of effectively combating the rapid spread of such infections; in fact, one billion people in the world are deprived of access to any sort of health care system at all.

The effect these diseases have on developing countries are crippling and result in a drastic loss of productivity. It prevents children from attending school, and adults from going to work. Treatments, if available, are often wildly unaffordable. Poor living conditions and absence of basic health services inevitably lead to reduced immunological response. However, the consequences of infectious disease in these countries reaches far past immediate health effects and death tolls; it overshadows economies and political foundations.

Following the African economy crisis in the 1980s, many of its countries forfeited control of their domestic spending priorities to the World Bank and IMF. Africa’s health care infrastructure has since disintegrated severely, leaving many of its countries unable to deal with the impact of poverty resultant disease. The lack of medical resources and breakdown in communication between health care providers and government have critically impeded efforts to restructure the health care system, which has since become privatized. Africa’s widely privatized health care system comprises of a two-tier platform, resulting in health services becoming another commodity reserved for the wealthy and further increasing the drastic gap between the rich and the poor.

Photo retrieved from: aefjn.org

Despite the exorbitant price of these services, privatized health care in African countries is simply frivolous when considering the nature of the basic health needs that arise in this continent. The private health sector is not able to respond to such vast demands for fundamental medical aid at such a widespread level. Africa needs adequate education and epidemic prevention initiatives, and the private health sector is unable to provide that on such a large scale.

The cruel irony is, the poverty and increasing debt which is exacerbated by the widespread prevalence of infectious disease, causes these countries to cut back on funding in health and education, the very thing that would function as a method to combat the spread of disease in the first place.

Perhaps the worst of it all, is the fact that these deadly diseases are widely preventable and curable. It is simply unacceptable that 2000 African children die from malaria each day, a disease that is easily curable (and preventable) — that’s one life every 45 seconds.

However hard we may try to push these facts out of our mind, it doesn’t make them any less existent. Now I’m not trying to guilt you into sending overseas donations, in fact, that’s not my point at all. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying donating to African charities isn’t worthwhile — it can’t hurt, but Africa’s underlying problem can’t be fixed from large-scale donations, all that succeeds in doing is creating a reliance on philanthropic gestures. Brendan Martin, author of New Leaf or Fig Leaf? The challenge of the New Washington Consensus, articulated this concept perfectly:

“It is all very well for Bill Gates to charitably donate $750m to pay for immunization programmes for certain diseases, as he recently announced he would do, and for James Wolfensohn to urge transnational companies setting up in poor countries to contribute financially directly to local education services. Societies which depend on such largess to meet their basic health and education needs are neither sustainable, democratic nor equitable—yet new dimensions of power are ceded to large companies.” — Brendan Martin, New Leaf or Fig Leaf? The challenge of the New Washington Consensus, Bretton Woods Project March 2000

Photo retrieved from: belindaotas.com

The African continent must restructure their health care initiatives from the fundamental level in order for them to become self-dependent. But of course, it’s a lot easier said than done. Who does Africa have to turn to for help in this restructuring? It’s easy to cast the blame on the pharmaceutical industry, but then you’d also have to blame capitalism — there’s simply no profit. Sure the market’s huge, but the money? Not so much. In fact, of the thousands of new medications drug companies have have introduced to the market in the last decade, fewer than 1% are for tropical diseases. In the struggle between unbridled altruism and capitalist profit, in the hands of Western pharmaceutical companies, the future of Africa’s struggles with disease-induced poverty looks pretty bleak.

]]>https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/altruism-vs-capitalism-obstacles-in-restructuring-africas-health-care-system/feed/2definingmyethossplashSouthAfrica_685x457pxhealth-care-for-allMann07Amref-0017_RT8Crisis Averted: Why the Republicans lost and how that reflects a progressive Americahttps://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/crisis-averted-why-the-republicans-lost-and-how-that-reflects-a-progressive-america/
https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/crisis-averted-why-the-republicans-lost-and-how-that-reflects-a-progressive-america/#commentsFri, 09 Nov 2012 05:51:33 +0000http://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/?p=91Continue reading →]]>Take a moment to mentally separate yourself from your surroundings. Tune out the rest of the world and clear your mind. Now close your eyes and imagine, just for a few seconds (as to avoid any long-term trauma), that Obama lost the election, and Romney had just become the President-elect.

Phew, that was scary, huh.

Perhaps you envisioned something similar to the apocalyptic image pictured above, an exaggeration of course (although maybe not, depending on how strongly you oppose the GOP), yet still a poignant aid in demonstrating how potentially disastrous a Romney-run American could be.

The fact is, the election results were a reflection of how America is changing — for the better.

The Republican party lost the election because they failed to realize that politics isn’t just a game for stuffy, old white guys anymore. They lost because they foolishly underestimated the impact of a large percentage of the American electorate whom they had simply wrote off as minorities, you know, immigrants, blacks, gays, Latinos, women, students, Big Bird lovers. But times have changed; the shrinking demographic that the Rightwingers so heavily relied on are not the sole deciders of the elections anymore, because that simply isn’t America. How could the GOP ever expect to win when their rhetoric targeted only one flaccid fraction of the American populace?

Spitting out some 50+ white guy with a conventional Christian background (apparently Mormon is also acceptable) and getting him to kiss a few babies just isn’t going to cut it anymore. And for the record, aggressive patriotism and extreme conservatism is so last century. The Republicans were so blinded by the idea of abating modern liberalism, that they completely lost focus of what the American people wanted from their government, in fact they did the opposite and moved even further to the Right.

The reality is, if hardcore Tea Baggers don’t abandon their Bible thumpin’, science denouncin’, bigoted ways, and conform to a more centrist approach with moderate views, they shouldn’t expect to win another election anytime soon. After all, a government should be a reflection of its people, representing the entire nation, not just the Bible Belt. Sorry Jebediah, America just ain’t treadin’ in that direction no more.

Extreme partisanship is not a solution, and certainly not the right way to run a government. America needs fewer wing nuts and more nonsecular people willing to transcend the red/blue barriers, and support bipartisan action on fiscal and social issues. If there’s anything history has taught us, it’s that extremism in any form is detrimental to society, and politics is no exception.

Why did the Republicans lose? It’s simple: they commended the wealthy and ignored the proletariat. They alienated women who valued the right to govern their own bodies. They failed to appeal to anyone with an ethnic background. They could not find common ground with the American youth. They were unsuccessful in gaining any substantial support from the LGBT community. And they had Rush Limbaugh as an endorser.

Ultimately, they failed to acknowledge the bourgeoisie as the decider of their electoral success or failure. The good news is, this election proved Americans aren’t willing to accept what was accepted in the past. Obama’s presidency has demonstrated a profound progression from predominantly traditionalist views to the growing acceptance of those who may not conform to the socially-constructed vision of the “typical American”. Each vote for the Democrats was a vote for inclusivity and a progressive America. Together, the minorities realized they were the majority.

If you were on Twitter last night then you are well aware of the madness that ensued as the election results trickled in. Each ‘refresh’ gave way to hundreds of new tweets from voters, celebrities, pundits, bloggers, pollsters, news accounts, and the voices of millions from around the globe. The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election was the world’s first Twitter Election, and it was exhilarating. Millions of people cashed in on the opportunity to share their voter experiences, last-stitch appeals for the candidates, or commentary in general. Others kept a close eye on their timelines and trending topics to access election news literally as it was happening.

Twitter revolutionized this election by providing a unifying source for rapid communication. It has effectively proven itself as a unparalleled resource to anyone wishing to promote a message, as it has manifested in just about every area of interest you can imagine. Whether you’re tuning in to people’s reactions to the latest cast-off from X-Factor or Tim Tebow’s touchdown, you’re doing it as part of a community of individuals who share your interests. Twitter has transformed the way we see the world, allowing people to stay connected with what’s going on, as well as share their own perspective; it has created a global conversation.

Last night’s events produced 31 million election-related tweets. Obama’s famed campaigning mantras, #Forward #FiredUp #FourMoreYears were among the top trending. Twitter solidified its role in politics as an invaluable tool to connect with other politically-keen people, regardless of location, not only last night but throughout all stages of the Presidential race. And if you participated in this ‘global conversation’, you were part of a social event that extended well beyond the borders of America; you were watching and waiting with the rest of the world.

My own timeline produced a constant jumble of pundit humor, statistics, celebrity testimonies, breaking news, and a startling number of election-related tweets coming from those whom I had no idea had the slightest interest in politics (most likely because they don’t). As soon as it was clear Obama had been re-elected, Twitter exploded with a peak of about 327,000 tweets a minute. With all the celebrating and cyber-cheering, it was impossible not to feel like you were part of a nationwide movement, a momentous occasion in American and global history.

The President acknowledged the end of the election with a single tweet that acted as a cathartic change of pace from the angst-ridden campaign season, and resonated heavily among all those who had supported Obama since the very beginning (it also broke the record for most popular tweet in just twenty-two minutes!).

The President’s tweet following his victory thanked Americans for voting for him and alluded to the power of people uniting towards a cause, which in this case, was demonstrated through Twitter:

“We’re all in this together. That’s how we campaigned, and that’s who we are. Thank you. -bo.”

The fact that the President himself took to Twitter before addressing the public in person, is a testament to the role of mainstream media in today’s society, and the power it holds in politics. This tweet marked the end of an era in newscasting, but it also signified the beginning of a new one — one in which politicians are able to connect with voters on a personal level and have their message spread with unequivocal speed. This election proved to be in keeping with this generation’s technological movement, further exemplifying our society’s dependance on technology, and its role in politics.

Though I was overjoyed about Obama’s re-election, I have to admit, by the end of the night I was feeling a little empty. What was I supposed to do now? I had been completely invested in this thing for months, and just like that, it’s over? There were so many good times, and great laughs (at the expense of the Reps of course). The debates alone yielded a plethora of memes, hashtags and parody accounts, like @BigBirdRomney, @InvisibleObama, @LaughingJoeBiden, @RomneysBinders, etc., what would happen to them?

I started to reminiscence over the good ol’ days back in ’08, when hope and change were the overpowering message of Obama’s campaign, what a monumental win that had been. We were all so hopeful, maybe even a little naïve, excited for a new beginning with a fresh approach. But how much had really changed since then? Nostalgia began to creep in and I started to think about how much my own life had changed in the last four years, and how much it will inevitably change in the next four.

]]>https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/forward-firedup-fourmore-how-twitter-revolutionized-election-night/feed/0definingmyethos87343_story__obamaScreen Shot 2012-11-08 at 1.19.43 AM“He who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.”https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/he-who-stands-for-nothing-will-fall-for-anything/
https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/he-who-stands-for-nothing-will-fall-for-anything/#commentsSun, 04 Nov 2012 20:24:13 +0000http://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/?p=37Continue reading →]]>I think it’s reasonable to assume that the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was speaking of Mitt Romney when he said, “He who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.”

Unfortunately, prophetic abilities of the Founding Fathers is not the topic I wish to discuss today. This is an argument for Americans who aren’t necessarily Obama supporters (or may not even identify with liberal beliefs), but still have the best interest of their country in mind.

People who believe Obama failed in his presidency, either do not understand the magnitude of the crisis he inherited, or held incredibly unrealistic expectations. Four years is not nearly enough time to reverse the damage created by the Bush administration. It took Bush eight years to create this mess, it’s only makes sense we give Obama another four to clean it up. Obama took office during an impossible time, and his critics tend to focus on the things he could not fix, or has not yet fixed, rather than all that he has. But I suppose that’s just human nature.

No doubt a number of these disillusioned Obama supporters made conclusions something along the lines of, “Well, he’s not great, but he’s a hell of a lot more competent than Romney.” Which brings me to the focus of this post: to show undecided voters, regardless of where they find themselves in the political spectrum, that even if you aren’t all that impressed with the President, voting for his second term is better than the alternative.

Sure everyone has their own idealized, superhero-esque idea of what the President should be, but the reality is, that simply doesn’t exist. Humans are deeply flawed and politicians especially, are no different. During election time, their priority is one in the same – getting that sweet spot in the Oval Office. The purpose of the rigorous campaigning process is for the public to get a sense of what each candidate is like, in terms of the policies they support, and the ones they don’t. For the most part, this includes appealing to the public and trying to portray political beliefs that they have in common with the electorate. You gain an understanding of what changes they intend to impose on the nation as well as each candidate’s highly-idealized vision for the future of the country.

Interestingly enough, one of the significant influences on voter support (particularly of the uninformed variety) has nothing to do with policies, tax plans, beliefs, or even party affiliation; and that is character. In most cases, the electorate can get a pretty good sense of that during the campaigning process too. Party conventions, speeches, rallies, and debates (oh the debates!) are all major exhibitions of each candidate’s character. Keeping in mind, these candidates are meticulously primed, buffed, and polished to perfection, yet despite being coached down to the slightest of hand gestures, true character always seems to poke its way through these hand-crafted political personas.

As soon as President Obama began his campaign in ’08, it was evident to everyone, Democrat or otherwise, that he was an eloquent speaker, a master at articulating his points with a calm and collected demeanour; never once breaking composure. He exuded confidence and class, the latter being rather hard to come by in these elections. He was not arrogant, in fact, the tone of humility in his expression of beliefs struck a chord with many Americans, as it is seldom heard in the realm of politics. Even Governor Romney described the President as “a very eloquent, gifted speaker.” Ah, Romney, the man of many faces. Some may call him versatile, others, an inconsistent imbecile. As I was saying earlier, the American people can usually get a good feel for what each candidate represents during the campaigning process. This however, is not the case with Mitt Romney.

I’m not going to showcase the long list of Romney’s inconsistent political views, simply for lack of time (if you are interested in reading up on those, you can do so here), but rather I intend to demonstrate the implications of these “flip-flops”.

Romney’s policy shifts (literally from one extreme to the other) and overall vagueness of his presidential agenda is a clear indication that he really has no idea what he’s going to do should he be elected.

First, he identifies himself as pro-choice, then he’s pro-life.

He didn’t support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, now he does.

He didn’t like the NRA, now he’s a member?!

WHO THE F*CK IS MITT ROMNEY?

His strategy it seems, is a desperate attempt to get the American people on his side, by saying anything that will benefit him politically, even if it’s contradictory to a previous stance. It seems however, that his strategy has backfired; instead of persuading the electorate, all he has succeeded in doing, is confusing them. Consistency is clearly not a priority for this man, and what does that say about his credibility? That he’s got none.

I am genuinely interested in understanding how someone could vote for Governor Romney. How could you put your trust in someone so clearly lacking substance? The fact is, Romney just doesn’t have the global perspective necessary for leading a country that bears such a great influence on the rest of the world. And by the way, the rest of the world agrees.

For once it seems, the world (except for Pakistan, but I guess you could say it’s one of those “exceptions that prove the rule” sort of situations) is in agreement over something: Romney is not the right man for the job. And maybe Obama isn’t either, but he’s certainly better than the alternative.

]]>https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/he-who-stands-for-nothing-will-fall-for-anything/feed/1definingmyethosscreen-shot-2012-10-27-at-5-46-42-pm_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012Yes, the President is black! And yes, it matters!https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/17/
https://definingmyethos.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/17/#commentsThu, 01 Nov 2012 05:50:40 +0000http://starspangleddemocracy.wordpress.com/?p=17Continue reading →]]>I came across an article today about a man from Boone County, Indiana who put up a Halloween display that sparked a great deal of outrage from his community. The controversial display included a stuffed body being hung by a noose, the face wore an Obama mask. This vivid depiction of the President’s death incited an investigation by the Secret Service.

After reading the article and scanning the Comments section, it was clear that the prevailing opinion was that the display was disgusting, ignorant, racist, etc. Yet, some people suggested that if the same display had depicted Bush during his time of presidency, it would not have garnered such attention and outrage.

Well duh.

Of course it would still be disturbing, incredibly disrespectful, and perhaps even indicative of underlying mental issues. However, the fact that the current president is black does make this situation relatively more insensitive than had it been a white president. It is a blatant reminder of the racism that gave rise to segregation and oppression of blacks in America, which to some degree still exists today. It was after all, the whites who enslaved, tortured, and killed blacks with support of the law. It was the whites who executed the blacks with the noose. It was, and still is, the white supremacist groups that hang nooses to elicit fear and propagate racism. The noose is a symbol of American brutality that resulted from the acceptance of widespread ignorance and lack of ethicality. Those who claim it would be no different than depicting a white President being hung from a noose, are probably the same people who argue Black History Month should not be celebrated.

Though this was not the first time the noose was used in the world’s history, the fact that its role in lynching is so recent, makes it that much more relevant in terms of how offensively it can be interpreted, not only towards African Americans, but anyone with a sense of American pride. Slavery and the mistreatment of blacks is one of the greatest sources of shame in American history; the noose undeniably represents that. That being said, it’s easy to understand how the effigy of Barack Obama with a rope tied around his neck could be perceived as condoning racism and hate crimes.

The man responsible, who opted to remain anonymous, issued this statement about the display, “He’s not supposed to look like he’s hanging. The rope had nothing to do with anything.”

I don’t know if anyone would really believe that but let’s entertain this idea for a moment. Okay, so it wasn’t intentional, but did this guy really fail to consider the implications of a noose-like device around a dummy representing a black man? Well apparently not. So it seems he’s either a bigot, or complete moron. I’m going to say both.

The Boone County prosecutor maintained that the man responsible for the display was acting within his rights as described in the First Amendment, and I am inclined to agree. That being said, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. The problem with free speech is that a vast grey area exists in terms of where to draw the line – how much free speech is too much free speech?

In this case, there’s no doubt the display was incredibly insensitive given the history of civil rights in this country. Whether or not this man was acting within his rights is irrelevant. It all boils down to human decency. Respect for an individual’s life is different than respect for an individual’s opinion; it comes from the acknowledgement of human dignity rather than whether or not you agree with them. No matter what your political stance, resorting to the exhibition of your beliefs in the way this man did is primitive and of bad taste. It is a clear example of a lack of respect for African American history. Not to mention all the people that this man has now subjected to seeing this gruesome display. I wonder how many parents were faced with the challenge of explaining to their children why the President was being hung from a gallows.

There is a right way to express your discontent with the government, and there is a wrong way, clearly. Free speech is a fundamental aspect of this country, but when an expression of opinion moves past the point of relevance and towards evoking hostility against a group of people and proliferating hate, it becomes destructive to the original intent of the First Amendment.